Mueller testifying. My theory

[WVUBRU]

I've been busy working and am way behind on posts and doubtful I will read to get caught up. So, if this is a duplicate thought to someone else, THE - go ahead and delete the thread.

I'm willing to bet today's Mueller's talk stemmed from the negotiations with Nadler and testifying publicly in congress and Mueller not wanting to. I am guessing Nadler said "if you just come out in public and state basically what is in your Executive Summary, no need to testify". That is what Mueller did and now the public has heard in Mueller's voice exactly what the Dems wanted. That is if the SC could have exonerated Trump, they would have. Since they didn't, there is a lot there for the Congress to work from.

Very bad day for Trump ONLY if Congress actually acts. If they don't, still a bad day but we will continue with the slow bleed Pelosi is on.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I've been busy working and am way behind on posts and doubtful I will read to get caught up. So, if this is a duplicate thought to someone else, THE - go ahead and delete the thread.

I'm willing to bet today's Mueller's talk stemmed from the negotiations with Nadler and testifying publicly in congress and Mueller not wanting to. I am guessing Nadler said "if you just come out in public and state basically what is in your Executive Summary, no need to testify". That is what Mueller did and now the public has heard in Mueller's voice exactly what the Dems wanted. That is if the SC could have exonerated Trump, they would have. Since they didn't, there is a lot there for the Congress to work from.

Very bad day for Trump ONLY if Congress actually acts. If they don't, still a bad day but we will continue with the slow bleed Pelosi is on.

Agree.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I agree. This was his deal to keep from having to answer questions he didn't want to, but still accomplished Nadler's goals.

The Senate will subpeona him, if it gets to that point, however.

 

[bamaEER]

I've been busy working and am way behind on posts and doubtful I will read to get caught up. So, if this is a duplicate thought to someone else, THE - go ahead and delete the thread.

I'm willing to bet today's Mueller's talk stemmed from the negotiations with Nadler and testifying publicly in congress and Mueller not wanting to. I am guessing Nadler said "if you just come out in public and state basically what is in your Executive Summary, no need to testify". That is what Mueller did and now the public has heard in Mueller's voice exactly what the Dems wanted. That is if the SC could have exonerated Trump, they would have. Since they didn't, there is a lot there for the Congress to work from.

Very bad day for Trump ONLY if Congress actually acts. If they don't, still a bad day but we will continue with the slow bleed Pelosi is on.

I think you nailed it. Mueller was definitely prompted to do this. I still wish he would have done it right after Barr delivered his botched version. 'Mueller lacked the authority to indict' should have been the first thing to come out of fatty's little mouth. Instead, the lack of indictment implied innocence, which was not the case.

 

[WVUBRU]

I think you nailed it. Mueller was definitely prompted to do this. I still wish he would have done it right after Barr delivered his botched version. Mueller lacked the authority to indict should have been the first thing to come out of fatty's little mouth.

Mueller is a boy scout. I don't think he foresaw Barr to come out with the BS that he did. That is why he first wrote that scathing letter that Barr called "snitty".

 

[wvu2007]

Mueller is a boy scout. I don't think he foresaw Barr to come out with the BS that he did. That is why he first wrote that scathing letter that Barr called "snitty".

LOL you dumb ***. He praised Barr.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

LOL you dumb ***. He praised Barr.

Really? So people who get praised call those statements “snitty?” LMAO!

 

[wvu2007]

Really? So people who get praised call those statements “snitty?” LMAO!

So Mueller lied?

 

[WVUBRU]

Mueller wanted to make today's statement to be his first and last. So, he played politics and made comments thanking everyone including his boss, Barr. I don't blame him. But that letter he wrote was very appropriate in how it was mishandled a month ago. So, spin from morons like ITT is expected.

 

[wvu2007]

Mueller wanted to make today's statement to be his first and last. So, he played politics and made comments thanking everyone including his boss, Barr. I don't blame him. But that letter he wrote was very appropriate in how it was mishandled a month ago. So, spin from morons like ITT is expected.

So Mueller is lying?

 

[mule_eer]

So Mueller is lying?

Believe it or not, it's possible for people to disagree about a topic AND be respectful. Mueller's comment was that he doesn't question the AG's good faith in how he handled the report. He can disagree with what initial documentation was released and still think that Barr is acting in good faith.

 

[dave]

Believe it or not, it's possible for people to disagree about a topic AND be respectful. Mueller's comment was that he doesn't question the AG's good faith in how he handled the report. He can disagree with what initial documentation was released and still think that Barr is acting in good faith.

He either lied today or Barr lied then.

 

[wvu2007]

Believe it or not, it's possible for people to disagree about a topic AND be respectful. Mueller's comment was that he doesn't question the AG's good faith in how he handled the report. He can disagree with what initial documentation was released and still think that Barr is acting in good faith.

Yeah, so he lied then.

 

[WVUBRU]

Believe it or not, it's possible for people to disagree about a topic AND be respectful. Mueller's comment was that he doesn't question the AG's good faith in how he handled the report. He can disagree with what initial documentation was released and still think that Barr is acting in good faith.

Perfect but too hard of a concept for simpletons to understand.

 

[mule_eer]

He either lied today or Barr lied then.

How is this a difficult thing to understand? I can think that someone took the wrong course of action but that they did it thinking that it was the right thing to do. It was a judgement call, and Barr and Mueller had a difference of opinion on that call. That doesn't mean that either is acting with any malice toward anyone.

 

[dave]

How is this a difficult thing to understand? I can think that someone took the wrong course of action but that they did it thinking that it was the right thing to do. It was a judgement call, and Barr and Mueller had a difference of opinion on that call. That doesn't mean that either is acting with any malice toward anyone.

How hard is it to realize he lied today or Barr lied?

 

[mule_eer]

How hard is it to realize he lied today or Barr lied?

I don't think that's necessarily true. On the conspiracy issue, the SC didn't find any links that led them to believe that the campaign coordinated things with the Russians. On the obstruction question, they didn't reach a conclusion. They were not looking to indict the sitting president, so they didn't make a case for it. They made notes of things that could be looked at by the branch of government that has the authority to act on it. Both can be telling the truth. Mueller didn't find anything that specifically cleared Trump on the obstruction question, and Barr didn't see a case that was sufficiently strong to prosecute at this point.

 

[wvu2007]

I don't think that's necessarily true. On the conspiracy issue, the SC didn't find any links that led them to believe that the campaign coordinated things with the Russians. On the obstruction question, they didn't reach a conclusion. They were not looking to indict the sitting president, so they didn't make a case for it. They made notes of things that could be looked at by the branch of government that has the authority to act on it. Both can be telling the truth. Mueller didn't find anything that specifically cleared Trump on the obstruction question, and Barr didn't see a case that was sufficiently strong to prosecute at this point.

L.M.A.O

 

[Mntneer]

I don't think that's necessarily true. On the conspiracy issue, the SC didn't find any links that led them to believe that the campaign coordinated things with the Russians. On the obstruction question, they didn't reach a conclusion. They were not looking to indict the sitting president, so they didn't make a case for it. They made notes of things that could be looked at by the branch of government that has the authority to act on it. Both can be telling the truth. Mueller didn't find anything that specifically cleared Trump on the obstruction question, and Barr didn't see a case that was sufficiently strong to prosecute at this point.

I don't buy that a sitting President could never be charged for a crime. I would wager that in rare circumstances, charges could be immediately brought upon a sitting President prior to impeachment proceedings from taking place.

However, I agree that they (Mueller) were not looking to make a case for it, but I don't think it was their place to prove the negative either, as it can't be proven. The left's logic that the lack of the negative being proved just doesn't hold water, and just because the negative wasn't proved that does not mean a crime was actually committed.

 

[mule_eer]

I don't buy that a sitting President could never be charged for a crime. I would wager that in rare circumstances, charges could be immediately brought upon a sitting President prior to impeachment proceedings from taking place.

However, I agree that they (Mueller) were not looking to make a case for it, but I don't think it was their place to prove the negative either, as it can't be proven. The left's logic that the lack of the negative being proved just doesn't hold water, and just because the negative wasn't proved that does not mean a crime was actually committed.

I'm not saying that a crime was committed. I'm saying that Mueller had a stopping point in his investigation per his reading of the DOJ policy. I think it's pretty obvious that he thinks that any additional investigation of the obstruction issue falls to Congress. I may not agree with his reading of DOJ policy, but I don't have his legal credentials either. Regardless, he was in control of this investigation, and this is the hand we have been dealt. I think it's entirely possible that further investigation doesn't give grounds for impeachment. It's an open question.

With respect to your first point, I think that Mueller would disagree. I think Mueller sees the process as impeach, remove from office, then pursue criminal proceedings.

 

[Mntneer]

I'm not saying that a crime was committed. I'm saying that Mueller had a stopping point in his investigation per his reading of the DOJ policy. I think it's pretty obvious that he thinks that any additional investigation of the obstruction issue falls to Congress. I may not agree with his reading of DOJ policy, but I don't have his legal credentials either. Regardless, he was in control of this investigation, and this is the hand we have been dealt. I think it's entirely possible that further investigation doesn't give grounds for impeachment. It's an open question.

With respect to your first point, I think that Mueller would disagree. I think Mueller sees the process as impeach, remove from office, then pursue criminal proceedings.

I think it would have been beneficial to the country, and the process, if Mueller had specifically stated that, as opposed to the "Well, if we could have proved the negative then we would a" part.

With regards to charging a sitting President, if a President up and murdered someone, then I can't imagine him remaining in office and in power while the House and Senate work through impeachment proceedings. I would bet that they would charge and take their chances with the courts to uphold it.

 

[dave]

I don't think that's necessarily true. On the conspiracy issue, the SC didn't find any links that led them to believe that the campaign coordinated things with the Russians. On the obstruction question, they didn't reach a conclusion. They were not looking to indict the sitting president, so they didn't make a case for it. They made notes of things that could be looked at by the branch of government that has the authority to act on it. Both can be telling the truth. Mueller didn't find anything that specifically cleared Trump on the obstruction question, and Barr didn't see a case that was sufficiently strong to prosecute at this point.

Barr said he asked Mueller if the DOJ internal memo played a part in the decision not to charge and that Mueller said it did not.

Mueller now says it played a big part.

Someone is telling a lie.

 

[mule_eer]

I think it would have been beneficial to the country, and the process, if Mueller had specifically stated that, as opposed to the "Well, if we could have proved the negative then we would a" part.

With regards to charging a sitting President, if a President up and murdered someone, then I can't imagine him remaining in office and in power while the House and Senate work through impeachment proceedings. I would bet that they would charge and take their chances with the courts to uphold it.

I don't disagree with you about how I wish Mueller would have viewed the DOJ policy. It left some things unanswered, and that's disappointing.

I'm sure there are some who would pursue charges against a sitting president in an extreme example like that, but my point is that I don't think Mueller would.

 

[dave]

I don't disagree with you about how I wish Mueller would have viewed the DOJ policy. It left some things unanswered, and that's disappointing.

I'm sure there are some who would pursue charges against a sitting president in an extreme example like that, but my point is that I don't think Mueller would.

Using the Mueller stated take on DOJ policy what is the purpose of a special prosecutor? Any prosecutor could investigate everyone elae but the President.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Using the Mueller stated take on DOJ policy what is the purpose of a special prosecutor?

Ask Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos, Manafort and Stone.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Ask Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos, Manafort and Stone.

To find process crimes and crimes unrelated to the point of appointment of the SC? Awesome

 

[dave]

Ask Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos, Manafort and Stone.

Its ok Handy, I never expected you to be able to answer.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[atlkvb]

Believe it or not, it's possible for people to disagree about a topic AND be respectful. Mueller's comment was that he doesn't question the AG's good faith in how he handled the report. He can disagree with what initial documentation was released and still think that Barr is acting in good faith.

He did and also said he had no problem with either Barr's integrity or his handling of the report which was a direct slap at Nadler and the "Truth Crusaders" who have been suggesting Barr is "hiding" something Muller found.

Not true, and Muller said everything he found is in his report and he has nothing more to add or say. Nor was he upset with what Barr has released. We need to see the FISA evidence, the 302s, the corroborating evidence used in the FISA warrant and if the House impeaches Trump, we need to hear the specific charges and see the evidence Mueller provided.

 

[atlkvb]

I don't disagree with you about how I wish Mueller would have viewed the DOJ policy. It left some things unanswered, and that's disappointing.

I'm sure there are some who would pursue charges against a sitting president in an extreme example like that, but my point is that I don't think Mueller would.

Mueller not only had an obligation to name the specific obstruction he found (if any) but his excuse for not suggesting a crime had been committed is bogus. Even if he didn't believe it, he could have said so. The way he did it, simply leaves the question open for speculation and that wasn't his job.

His job was to find evidence of a crime and present it, or not find evidence and say "nothing to see here". He's trying to do both and in the process does a disservice to the American people who needed a resolution of his two year investigation one way or the other.

 

[atlkvb]

Mueller is like the Doctor you go see so he can check if that cyst on your neck is Cancerous? He runs his tests, weighs the evidence, then comes back to you and says he really can't make up his mind. So he'll just turn everything over he's found to let your friends and Family decide.